Vo Nguyen Giap, cold war warrior, passed away

[Big B]

Now this is a good post....

ORIGINAL: Symon

Geopolitical considerations don’t have much to do with whether someone’s a good general or not. I believe, Vo Nguyen Giap was a good general. He was neither a tactical nor strategic “genius”, simply a good general who did what he could with what he had at hand.

I call him good because we were the 9000lb gorilla. We were tactically superior; we had fire, mobility, support and supply superiority and controlled the airspace. We were operationally superior in that we could go where we wanted, with what we wanted, when we wanted.

In the face of the disproportionate scale of superiority (and consequent casualties), Vo Nguyen Giap was able to maintain the organization and morale of his troops for yet one more ‘push’. THAT is the mark of a good general. Probably his only claim to tactical/operational fame, is his decision to break down his artillery and manually hump it to the heights above Dien Bien Phu. Sure surprised Hell out of de Castries, yeah?

Served two tours, first in II Corps in Pleiku and Kontum, second in III Corps in Long Khanh, Binh Duong and Long Anh, spanning 1969-1971. Been there, saw it. Have a second navel in my right thigh and some nice dueling scars just left of my left eye.

Don’t like him, don’t hate him, don’t think much about him, but he was a player and believed in what he was doing. His nation honors him as a hero, okey doke. I understand why. But he sure as heck wasn’t some kind of military genius. He was a “good” general. And I respect that..

[ed] There's some people, whose troops I did my best to kill, whose funeral I would I would not consider myself dimished by attending. So a digital white rose to the %L*I of Vo Nguten Giap.
Ciao. JWE

[desicat]

But by the early 80s for a mid-grade military officer to still believe in the Domino Theory shows a lot of cement in his world-view.

I thought I was done with this thread but I have to disagree here. Red China and the USSR never saw eye to eye but the NVA were able to play them off each other to get supplies and assistance throughout the conflict with the USSR ending up as their main benefactor in the end. Ultimately North Vietnam had to bow to the realism of China being a historic threat to its northern territories. This was in temporary suspension during the Chinese Civil War and the early 60's.

The Domino Theory has not been discredited as was stated and is still being discussed in the War Colleges. Communist movements in SE Asia post WWII were prevalent almost everywhere. Malaysia, 1962 Coup in Burma, Thailand, Indonesia. etc. One also has to view the situation (in the late 50's early 60's) through the Prism of the Communist victory in now Red China and the Korean War.

The war in Vietnam allowed the nation states south of Thailand an opportunity to stabilize both politically and economically, most chose to purge themselves of their internal Communist foes. By 1972 the international Communist movement had "openly" splintered and Nixon had "gone to China". To cast the Domino Theory aside as a disproven myth of heated Cold War rhetoric is not entirely universally accepted.

[Big B]

+1
and now I have nothing to add [;)]

ORIGINAL: desicat

But by the early 80s for a mid-grade military officer to still believe in the Domino Theory shows a lot of cement in his world-view.

I thought I was done with this thread but I have to disagree here. Red China and the USSR never saw eye to eye but the NVA were able to play them off each other to get supplies and assistance throughout the conflict with the USSR ending up as their main benefactor in the end. Ultimately North Vietnam had to bow to the realism of China being a historic threat to its northern territories. This was in temporary suspension during the Chinese Civil War and the early 60's.

The Domino Theory has not been discredited as was stated and is still being discussed in the War Colleges. Communist movements in SE Asia post WWII were prevalent almost everywhere. Malaysia, 1962 Coup in Burma, Thailand, Indonesia. etc. One also has to view the situation (in the late 50's early 60's) through the Prism of the Communist victory in now Red China and the Korean War.

The war in Vietnam allowed the nation states south of Thailand an opportunity to stabilize both politically and economically, most chose to purge themselves of their internal Communist foes. By 1972 the international Communist movement had "openly" splintered and Nixon had "gone to China". To cast the Domino Theory aside as a disproven myth of heated Cold War rhetoric is not entirely universally accepted.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: desicat

But by the early 80s for a mid-grade military officer to still believe in the Domino Theory shows a lot of cement in his world-view.

I thought I was done with this thread but I have to disagree here. Red China and the USSR never saw eye to eye but the NVA were able to play them off each other to get supplies and assistance throughout the conflict with the USSR ending up as their main benefactor in the end. Ultimately North Vietnam had to bow to the realism of China being a historic threat to its northern territories. This was in temporary suspension during the Chinese Civil War and the early 60's.

The Domino Theory has not been discredited as was stated and is still being discussed in the War Colleges. Communist movements in SE Asia post WWII were prevalent almost everywhere. Malaysia, 1962 Coup in Burma, Thailand, Indonesia. etc. One also has to view the situation (in the late 50's early 60's) through the Prism of the Communist victory in now Red China and the Korean War.

The war in Vietnam allowed the nation states south of Thailand an opportunity to stabilize both politically and economically, most chose to purge themselves of their internal Communist foes. By 1972 the international Communist movement had "openly" splintered and Nixon had "gone to China". To cast the Domino Theory aside as a disproven myth of heated Cold War rhetoric is not entirely universally accepted.

I agree re the USSR and China's role in Vietnam. This was the strategic reason the US could not march on Hanoi, and leaders like Giap knew this and used it.

We'll just agree to disagree about cause and effect on the rest. And as you say, by 1972 the cat was out of the bag about unity in Commie Land for the general public. For pros in the intel community the truth was known far earlier. Or, they could have just compared the Little Red Book to Lenin's writings. The worldviews in each were strikingly different.

But as far back as the Truman administration politicians in the US were throwing the DT up as red meat and a fund-raising tool.

[desicat]

The Domino Theory is still alive and well in certain circles in DC. There were several published National Security Strategies in the most recent Bush Administration that advocated a kind of reverse Domino Theory based on hoped for success in Iraq. Bush was not shy in his speeches calling for people to rise up and secure their thirsts for freedom. One could argue that the elections in Iraq, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the success of the Kurds, and the just too late Green Revolution in Iran were the first fruits of this policy.

The most recent "Arab Spring" was the nightmare scenario that was guarded against just a few years ago. This Domino Theory was based upon trying to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from orchestrating "elections" under the "one man - one vote - one time" practice. This was initially vigorously opposed in Algeria in the 00's, but to see Egypt, and possibly Syria, Libya, Jordan, and Tunisia fall in this manner is truly frightening.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: desicat

The Domino Theory is still alive and well in certain circles in DC. There were several published National Security Strategies in the most recent Bush Administration that advocated a kind of reverse Domino Theory based on hoped for success in Iraq. Bush was not shy in his speeches calling for people to rise up and secure their thirsts for freedom. One could argue that the elections in Iraq, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the success of the Kurds, and the just too late Green Revolution in Iran were the first fruits of this policy.

The most recent "Arab Spring" was the nightmare scenario that was guarded against just a few years ago. This Domino Theory was based upon trying to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from orchestrating "elections" under the "one man - one vote - one time" practice. This was initially vigorously opposed in Algeria in the 00's, but to see Egypt, and possibly Syria, Libya, Jordan, and Tunisia fall in this manner is truly frightening.

To compare what's happening in the Muslim world now with the DT is pretty out there. I hope this isn't what the pros in D.C. spend their time on. The two sets of circumstances are wildly different.

I know what President Bush thought and hoped, but he saw the world through a Western, nation-state lens. As it was reported that he needed to have the differences between a Sunni and a Shiite explained to him after 9/11 . . .

I don't want to go down this path here. I usually ends with threads being locked.

[desicat]

To compare what's happening in the Muslim world now with the DT is pretty out there. I hope this isn't what the pros in D.C. spend their time on. The two sets of circumstances are wildly different.

The Domino Theory is alive and well at the National Security Adviser level and in the professional Intel community. The circumstances are indeed different but the theory remains. One only needs to go back to the 2006 National Security Strategy to find this:

B. Successes and Challenges since 2002
Since 2002, the world has seen extraordinary progress in the expansion of freedom, democracy, and human dignity:
• The peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq have replaced tyrannies with democracies.
• In Afghanistan, the tyranny of the Taliban has been replaced by a freely-elected government; Afghans have written and ratified a constitution guaranteeing rights and freedoms unprecedented in their history; and an elected legislature gives the people a regular voice in their government.
• In Iraq, a tyrant has been toppled; over 8 million Iraqis voted in the nation’s first free and fair election; a freely negotiated constitution was passed by a referendum in which almost 10 million Iraqis participated; and, for the first time in their history, nearly 12 million Iraqis have elected a permanent government under a popularly determined constitution.
• The people of Lebanon have rejected the heavy hand of foreign rule. The people of Egypt have experienced more open but still flawed elections. Saudi Arabia has taken some preliminary steps to give its citizens more of a voice in their government. Jordan has made progress in opening its political process. Kuwait and Morocco are pursuing agendas of political reform.
• The “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan have brought new hope for freedom across the Eurasian landmass.
• Democracy has made further advances in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, with peaceful transfers of power; growth in independent judiciaries and the rule of law; improved election practices; and expanding political and economic rights.
The human desire for freedom is universal, but the growth of freedom is not inevitable. Without support from free nations, freedom’s spread could be hampered by the challenges we face:

President Bush was very passionate about exporting basic human freedom to those who sought it out and he crafted his Nation Security Strategy to meet that aim. He was convinced that if people were given the opportunity for freedom and has US support that they would reach out - as witnessed in the Lebanese Cedar Revolution and the Green Revolution in Iran. His goals for the Middle East:

3. Middle East
The Broader Middle East continues to command the world’s attention. For too long, too many nations of the Middle East have suffered from a freedom deficit. Repression has fostered corruption, imbalanced or stagnant economies, political resentments, regional conflicts, and religious extremism. These maladies were all cloaked by an illusion of stability. Yet the peoples of the Middle East share the same desires as people in the rest of the world: liberty, opportunity, justice, order, and peace. These desires are now being expressed in movements for reform. The United States is committed to supporting the efforts of reformers to realize a better life for themselves and their region.
We seek a Middle East of independent states, at peace with each other, and fully participating in an open global market of goods, services, and ideas. We are seeking to build a framework that will allow Israel and the Palestinian territories to live side by side in peace and security as two democratic states. In the wider region, we will continue to support efforts for reform and freedom in traditional allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Tyrannical regimes such as Iran and Syria that oppress at home and sponsor terrorism abroad know that we will continue to stand with their people against their misrule. And in Iraq, we will continue to support the Iraqi people and their historic march from tyranny to effective democracy. We will work with the freely elected, democratic government of Iraq – our new partner in the War on Terror – to consolidate and expand freedom, and to build security and lasting stability.

...and a conclusion that fit the noble thought put forth in the NSS:

XI. Conclusion

The challenges America faces are great, yet we have enormous power and influence to address those challenges. The times require an ambitious national security strategy, yet one recognizing the limits to what even a nation as powerful as the United States can achieve by itself. Our national security strategy is idealistic about goals, and realistic about means.
There was a time when two oceans seemed to provide protection from problems in other lands, leaving America to lead by example alone. That time has long since passed. America cannot know peace, security, and prosperity by retreating from the world. America must lead by deed as well as by example. This is how we plan to lead, and this is the legacy we will leave to those who follow.

[LoBaron]

TBH I find the content of the above quote both ignorant and frightening. It is exactly what The Moose described as viewing the world through a Western state lens.

Theres are a lot more complex and often contradicting sociopolitical conditions present and developing in those areas than any externally fuelled strive for freedom and democracy and/or desire for global security could either explain or solve.

That said this thread is drifting a bit too far into the current politics corner and I cannot fail to notice I am contributing. Brrrr. Better stop now. [:-]

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: desicat

To compare what's happening in the Muslim world now with the DT is pretty out there. I hope this isn't what the pros in D.C. spend their time on. The two sets of circumstances are wildly different.

The Domino Theory is alive and well at the National Security Adviser level and in the professional Intel community. The circumstances are indeed different but the theory remains. One only needs to go back to the 2006 National Security Strategy to find this:

B. Successes and Challenges since 2002
Since 2002, the world has seen extraordinary progress in the expansion of freedom, democracy, and human dignity:
• The peoples of Afghanistan and Iraq have replaced tyrannies with democracies.
• In Afghanistan, the tyranny of the Taliban has been replaced by a freely-elected government; Afghans have written and ratified a constitution guaranteeing rights and freedoms unprecedented in their history; and an elected legislature gives the people a regular voice in their government.
• In Iraq, a tyrant has been toppled; over 8 million Iraqis voted in the nation’s first free and fair election; a freely negotiated constitution was passed by a referendum in which almost 10 million Iraqis participated; and, for the first time in their history, nearly 12 million Iraqis have elected a permanent government under a popularly determined constitution.
• The people of Lebanon have rejected the heavy hand of foreign rule. The people of Egypt have experienced more open but still flawed elections. Saudi Arabia has taken some preliminary steps to give its citizens more of a voice in their government. Jordan has made progress in opening its political process. Kuwait and Morocco are pursuing agendas of political reform.
• The “color revolutions” in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan have brought new hope for freedom across the Eurasian landmass.
• Democracy has made further advances in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, with peaceful transfers of power; growth in independent judiciaries and the rule of law; improved election practices; and expanding political and economic rights.
The human desire for freedom is universal, but the growth of freedom is not inevitable. Without support from free nations, freedom’s spread could be hampered by the challenges we face:

President Bush was very passionate about exporting basic human freedom to those who sought it out and he crafted his Nation Security Strategy to meet that aim. He was convinced that if people were given the opportunity for freedom and has US support that they would reach out - as witnessed in the Lebanese Cedar Revolution and the Green Revolution in Iran. His goals for the Middle East:

3. Middle East
The Broader Middle East continues to command the world’s attention. For too long, too many nations of the Middle East have suffered from a freedom deficit. Repression has fostered corruption, imbalanced or stagnant economies, political resentments, regional conflicts, and religious extremism. These maladies were all cloaked by an illusion of stability. Yet the peoples of the Middle East share the same desires as people in the rest of the world: liberty, opportunity, justice, order, and peace. These desires are now being expressed in movements for reform. The United States is committed to supporting the efforts of reformers to realize a better life for themselves and their region.
We seek a Middle East of independent states, at peace with each other, and fully participating in an open global market of goods, services, and ideas. We are seeking to build a framework that will allow Israel and the Palestinian territories to live side by side in peace and security as two democratic states. In the wider region, we will continue to support efforts for reform and freedom in traditional allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Tyrannical regimes such as Iran and Syria that oppress at home and sponsor terrorism abroad know that we will continue to stand with their people against their misrule. And in Iraq, we will continue to support the Iraqi people and their historic march from tyranny to effective democracy. We will work with the freely elected, democratic government of Iraq – our new partner in the War on Terror – to consolidate and expand freedom, and to build security and lasting stability.

...and a conclusion that fit the noble thought put forth in the NSS:

XI. Conclusion

The challenges America faces are great, yet we have enormous power and influence to address those challenges. The times require an ambitious national security strategy, yet one recognizing the limits to what even a nation as powerful as the United States can achieve by itself. Our national security strategy is idealistic about goals, and realistic about means.
There was a time when two oceans seemed to provide protection from problems in other lands, leaving America to lead by example alone. That time has long since passed. America cannot know peace, security, and prosperity by retreating from the world. America must lead by deed as well as by example. This is how we plan to lead, and this is the legacy we will leave to those who follow.

Breaking news from cloud cuckoo land? [&:]

[Terminus]

If by "breaking news" you mean something that was written 7 years ago...

[Terminus]

Maybe we can close this thread now. Shouldn't have been started in the first place; too ****ing sensitive.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe we can close this thread now. Shouldn't have been started in the first place; too ****ing sensitive.

If you are looking for a second, then please consider the motion seconded. [:(]

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe we can close this thread now. Shouldn't have been started in the first place; too ****ing sensitive.

No, a good discussion in many ways and although OT not out of place here. As long as there is not any bashing and name calling. There has been some good dialog here. There is much to know about Giap and the Vietnam War. But you are right about it drifting a bit OT on an OT subject.[;)]

[veji1]

ORIGINAL: Feltan


T,

OK. I disagree. In my opinion, he was a thug who showed disregard for his own people and soldiers, and brutal contempt for helpless civilians once under his control. His willingness to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers to achieve objectives in the field doesn't distinguish him nor elevate his reputation to that of the great marshals of history.

Regards,
Feltan

The problem with such a comment is that it implies "rules" that would make victory for the north vietnamese impossible : "you are allowed to win only with minimal losses, even facing overwhelming technological superiority"... Yeah right with such rules you don't win...

Giap had to resort to some sort of assymetrical warfare, at the time it was accepting massive losses in the hope of eventually forcing the ennemy to retreat, be it through direct military defeat (ie Dien Bien Phu style), which was unlikely, or throught political factors.

Where the Vietnam war taking place today, the north vietnamese might have resorted to terrorism against US civilians and interests, etc...

The point is you cannot evaluate Giap's results with such standards, it just simply doesn't make sense.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: veji1

ORIGINAL: Feltan


T,

OK. I disagree. In my opinion, he was a thug who showed disregard for his own people and soldiers, and brutal contempt for helpless civilians once under his control. His willingness to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of his own soldiers to achieve objectives in the field doesn't distinguish him nor elevate his reputation to that of the great marshals of history.

Regards,
Feltan

The problem with such a comment is that it implies "rules" that would make victory for the north vietnamese impossible : "you are allowed to win only with minimal losses, even facing overwhelming technological superiority"... Yeah right with such rules you don't win...

Giap had to resort to some sort of assymetrical warfare, at the time it was accepting massive losses in the hope of eventually forcing the ennemy to retreat, be it through direct military defeat (ie Dien Bien Phu style), which was unlikely, or throught political factors.

Where the Vietnam war taking place today, the north vietnamese might have resorted to terrorism against US civilians and interests, etc...

The point is you cannot evaluate Giap's results with such standards, it just simply doesn't make sense.

An excellent point. The ultimate goal in conflict is to win or attain your purpose. Vietnam today is independent and unified and free from outside intervention. Say what you want, but they did eventually gain what they wanted. Given the disproportionate balance of forces, you have to at least respect that. Whether you like them or not.

[AW1Steve]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe we can close this thread now. Shouldn't have been started in the first place; too ****ing sensitive.

No, a good discussion in many ways and although OT not out of place here. As long as there is not any bashing and name calling. There has been some good dialog here. There is much to know about Giap and the Vietnam War. But you are right about it drifting a bit OT on an OT subject.[;)]

Yes, in the GENERAL forum, or in one that might be involve the Vietnam war. BUT ANY contentious issue can be expected to lead to "bashing and name-calling". I suspect that good manners in this particular forum is the only reason that this thread has not degenerated into chaos. Good manners would also have suggested that "loaded issues" not bearing on this forum probably shouldn't be raised here. [:(]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Maybe we can close this thread now. Shouldn't have been started in the first place; too ****ing sensitive.

No, a good discussion in many ways and although OT not out of place here. As long as there is not any bashing and name calling. There has been some good dialog here. There is much to know about Giap and the Vietnam War. But you are right about it drifting a bit OT on an OT subject.[;)]

Yes, in the GENERAL forum, or in one that might be involve the Vietnam war. BUT ANY contentious issue can be expected to lead to "bashing and name-calling". I suspect that good manners in this particular forum is the only reason that this thread has not degenerated into chaos. Good manners would also have suggested that "loaded issues" not bearing on this forum probably shouldn't be raised here. [:(]

warspite1

Why would anyone post in the General Forum? No one but boisterous non-players of wargames who cannot grasp complex rules frequent that forum if you remember [:-]

But that aside, there have been some excellent OT discussions in this forum over the years - no doubt reflecting that there is a lot of great knowledge here. They have by no means all gone off the rails - remember the one about Churchill and Halifax, or the one about Japan and their capabilities re Pearl Harbor?

So until they show real sign of going off the rails, why try and close down a source of good, sensible, grown-up debate where people learn things?

[desicat]

TBH I find the content of the above quote both ignorant and frightening. It is exactly what The Moose described as viewing the world through a Western state lens.

If you follow the link you will note that this was taken directly from the National Security Strategy of the United States (2006 version), a document that is required by law. It is viewed directly from the the "lens" of the President of the United States (at the time) and should be read in that context.

I posted this to answer the question as to whether the Domino Theory was still being considered in strategic circles. The answer, as supported by the NSS 2006, is yes. Since the Domino Theory is a "theory" there is no way to prove it as truth.

[desicat]

Breaking news from cloud cuckoo land?

Not written by me, just used for a supporting argument to show that the Domino Theory is still a "theory" that is in use.

As a FYI, the NSS is the overriding policy document for the United States government that guides all others, including; The National Defense Strategy, The National Military Strategy, The Theater Command Strategy's, all Theater Engagement Policies, etc.

The National Security Adviser works with the National Security Counsel with inputs from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to draft the NSS to comply with the Presidents vision. Smart people who may disagree with your politics, but far from "cuckoo".

Edit: Since the NSS is such a huge overriding document with many required follow-on written policies it is only published every four years. While your statement that it is 7 years old is true, it is currently only 1 iteration out of date.

[desicat]

An excellent point. The ultimate goal in conflict is to win or attain your purpose. Vietnam today is independent and unified and free from outside intervention. Say what you want, but they did eventually gain what they wanted. Given the disproportionate balance of forces, you have to at least respect that. Whether you like them or not.

This is really the only thing that matters. It is like playing a football game and at the end pointing to the scoreboard!